[Leica] Leica, Nikon and the Korean War

["Sal DiMarco,Jr." <sdmp007@pressroom.com>]

Luggers,

    Much as been said in the past few days about the rise of Nikon and
Nikkor lenses during the Korean War, over a half century ago. Both main
authors have seized upon only part of the facts and ignored others, making
their conclusions not quite accurate.
    First of all, the discovery of Nikon in Japan is claimed by three LIFE
photographers Horace Bristol, David Douglas Duncan, and Carl Mydans. All
three were working in Japan at the time and had access to more or less the
same people and more importantly, used the same Japanese assistants (who had
all the contacts.) Unfortunately, I don't think we will ever be able to get
a definite answer to who is the ONE who made the discovery, if there is just
one.
    Bristol is dead. Mydans, who is 92, doesn't remember, and Duncan won't
talk about it.
    What is known is all three found Nikkor lenses to be sharper than their
German counterparts in the 35 to 135mm range, plus the longer lenses were
faster and lighter 85mm f/2, and 135mm f/3.5 as opposed to 90mm f/4 and
135mm f/4.5.
     While, LIFE photographers did own their own equipment, cost would never
have been a factor in what to carry into a war zone. Only, what would help
make better pictures. Besides, they had a rather liberal equipment allowance
which they had to spend on toys or they wouldn't get it. Anything ruined in
battle would be replaced, without question.
    During the Korean War all the LIFE photographers who covered it used
35mm. This included Peggy Bourke-White, Hank  Walker, Mike Rougier, John
Dominis, and Howard Sochurek and Joe Scherschel.
    The only other civilian photographers regularly there were wire service
people. At the time, all three services, The Associated Press, United Press
and International News Photos (in 1958 the last two merged into UPI.) had a
partial ban on  35mm cameras. These guys were shooting 4x5 Speed Graphics
with film packs and were shipping their stuff back to Tokyo for processing.
Max Desfor, who was an AP photographer in Korea told me, he did carry a
Nikon as a back up, and the lenses were very good. I guess for him cost
would have been a factor, since the company wouldn't buy him any 35mm gear.
Max won a Pulitzer Prize in 1951 for a picture he made during the war.
Sorry, it was on 4x5.
    Also, during this time, most newspapers did not approval for their
photogs using 35mm, except in the rarest of circumstances.
    The US military photographers mainly carried Speed Graphics supplied by
the military. Cost may have been a factor to them, but they were not
responsible for the "discovery."
    Much has been said about an article in the NY TIMES about the discovery
of Nikons and Nikkor lenses in the 1950s. I have never seen a copy of this
story. My guess is it was a Sunday camera column written by Jacob "Jack"
Deschin. This may shed some light on the subject.
    At LIFE, 35mm was always used. In the beginning there was a lot of
Rollie used too, along with multiple flash. Occasionally, the lab people
would want more medium format, because it was easier to print, but the
photographers ignored them. It was the photographers' responsibility to
bring back the pictures, not the printers. FYI, in WWII most LIFE shooters
carried two 35mm cameras and a Rollie into battle. Carl Mydans told me he
used a Rollie only for "fringe stuff," the combat pictures were "always shot
on 35mm."
    As to the question of Nikon copying Leica and Zeiss designs. According
the the late Bob Schwalberg, there was a fair amount of copying going on in
the beginning, as a learning process (my phrase) and they progressed into
their own designs. Bob said at the time (1950's)  The Germans had better
lens designing skills, but the rare earth elements the Japanese were using
for their lenses were better than anything the Germans had at the time.
    Also, there was a philosophical difference in lens design theories at
the time. Leica designed for best performance at infinity, while Zeiss
designed for best performance at closer ranges which was copies by both
Canon and Nikon. Eventually,  lens design and technology out grew this
either or choice.
    Lastly, as to the growth of the popularity of the Nikon and Canon lenses
in the mid-50's to early 60's, all one has to do is look at the lens
programs of  all three companies, Leitz was sadly far behind. While the M3
was THE camera to use, it lacked the lens versatility offered by Nikon and
Canon. Leitz had a 28mm f/5.6; Nikon a 28mm f/3.5; Canon a 28mm f/2.8; the
most popular focal length among pros the 35mm, Leitz offered f/3.5; Nikon
and Canon f/1.8 and f/1.5 lenses respectively and there were more.  By the
time Leitz had similar lenses, the Nikon 'F' took over the market. According
to Bob Rotoloni, the President of the Nikon Historical Society, at a speech
to the Leica Historical Society of America in Chicago in October 1999. Nikon
stopped production of the rangefinder line in order to increase production
on the 'F.'
    Well, that's it for me.

Happy shooting,
Sal DiMarco, Jr.